Predator Trilogy 4K UHD (1987-2010)

[Hellraiserfan]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

So if Predator looks great and the others don’t you won’t buy Predator?

Not sure if I'll want to have all three if only the original looks good. Depends on the price. If 2 and Predators look like crap hopefully they release the original on 4K down the road as a single release.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

Not sure if I'll want to have all three if only the original looks good. Depends on the price. If 2 and Predators look like crap hopefully they release the original on 4K down the road as a single release.

Ah gotcha. We’ll know soon enough I guess

[imsounoriginal]

Really only want the first one for now, but at these prices the trilogy makes way more sense. Just gonna wait for the first on its own to come down, even if I have to miss getting it day one.

[Rick Grimes]

Exactly. In Australia, while they are doing them as seperate releases, Predator, Predator 2 and Predators are $40 each. Yet the Trilogy is $56!
While I really just wanted to upgrade on the shithlise Predator UHE 1080p Blu-Ray... I’m getting Predator 2 & Predators for $8 each on UHD Blu-Ray.

[James_Younger_Gang]

I want to preorder the trilogy. Is this sure to not hit walmart stores on release date?

[Win Slow]

Originally Posted by Kubrick0730

Bull moose has it for 43.97 shipped

Link ? It did not come up for me on their site ...

[BLMN]

Originally Posted by Win Slow

Link ? It did not come up for me on their site ...

http://www.bullmoose.com/p/27621176/...ollection-4khd

[Win Slow]

Originally Posted by BLMN

http://www.bullmoose.com/p/27621176/...ollection-4khd

Thanks so much ! Pre order is in. I felt like at $50 or more the price was too high considering the JP collection was the same price for 4 movies and this one is only 3. The $43.97 price w/ shipping is a bit more reasonable.

[CptHowdy87]

There's no Predator "Trilogy"

There's Predator (1987) and it's sequel Predator 2 (1990)

Predators (2010) is some reboot/spin-off that came many years later and has nothing to do with the first 2 Predator movies. Sorry to be pedantic. It sucks when shitty movies like T3, Salvation and Genysys are sold in box-sets with T1 and T2 or Live Free or Die Hard and Good Day to Die Hard get packaged with the original 3 Die Hard movies. They're spin-offs. Sequels in name only. They have absolutely no involvement from the original creators. I want the original movies. I don't want to pay extra and have my money going to the creators of the movies I don't like and don't even want just because the only way I can get the original movies is by buying these box-sets that include the shitty sequels that most people otherwise wouldn't buy on their own.

I'll buy the original movies in a set or I'll buy the original movies individually. I don't care if I have to wait and in some cases I've had to wait a very long time for solo releases. I don't want a cent of my money going towards the creators of movies I don't want.

Thankfully in this instance we're getting solo releases of the first 2 Predator movies. Even if it was cheaper to buy the "trilogy" I still wouldn't do it.

[eastx]

Predators has exactly as much to do with the series as Predator 2, so...

[boredandlazy]

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

Exactly. In Australia, while they are doing them as seperate releases, Predator, Predator 2 and Predators are $40 each. Yet the Trilogy is $56!
While I really just wanted to upgrade on the shithlise Predator UHE 1080p Blu-Ray... I’m getting Predator 2 & Predators for $8 each on UHD Blu-Ray.

The Aussie releases don't include a copy of the regular Blu-Ray though, which is a downer for some people.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by eastx

Predators has exactly as much to do with the series as Predator 2, so...

Exactly, if they wanted it to be it’s own separate entity they wouldn’t have added the dialogue regarding the events of the original Predator film.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Tonight, I had the privilege of seeing an original 35mm print of Predator at The Ritz in Sydney. I may have watched it recently in 4K on Apple TV, but 35mm? An original 80s print? Christmas came early!

Of course, the print shows signs of wear and tear. Print damage was almost constant, particularly at the beginning and end of each reel. There was loud hissing at the beginning, too, but that subsided. There was just a few crackles and hisses around reel changes, understandably. But that aside, the print was well kept. Colours still looked great for the most part.

One thing that struck me was that the grain didn't resemble "Sony grain." It was actually quite subtle for the most part, aside from the shots that have always looked like hot garbage due to optical zoom-ins and manipulation (Arnie falling from the cliff, and down the waterfall). While watching the Apple TV version, I did at times think the grain looked lightly managed, but the grain structure looked identical in the print; noticeable but not overwhelming. If you've watched Die Hard 4K, expect that type of grain. One can assume this all traces back to the film stock, lenses, lighting choices, aperture, etc.

Point is, the Apple TV 4K remaster is completely faithful to the source and is the best that the movie has ever looked. I cannot wait to own it on disc and see what a disc encode is capable of.

...But if ever the 35mm print is showing nearby again, I'm going

Glad you liked it. I saw Predator in 35mm last year for the first time too and it was a lot of fun. It was rather soft looking and grain is practically non-existent, but that's to be expected when dealing with fourth generation prints as Geoff mentioned. It is also important to note that the color timing was rather close to the original BD. It wasn't very bright or colorful even in daylight scenes and the Predator was cloaked in shadow, which makes sense. So if you want further proof of how screwed up the UHE was in terms of...well, everything, there you go. I know a theatrical print isn't a perfect color reference compared to an answer print, but I think it's still a valid reference for what a movie should generally look like.

I think 35mm projection can be quite enjoyable. I saw RoboCop in 35mm last night at my local art house theater. I've seen it dozens of times on DVD and BD, but never on film. I was shocked at how sharp it was even compared to the new BD from a 4K remaster. I'd never seen it that detailed before! There wasn't much in the way of grain, but the detail was still very evident. That just goes to show you how much was captured originally. Had I been watching a show print that was right off the camera negative, grain would have been more apparent and even more detail would be there.

Anyway, I'm glad you got a chance to see it on film. It is a special experience. I've been much more satisfied seeing 35mm prints as opposed to the same titles on a DCP. I see as many prints as I can as I don't know how long they will be around and I really enjoy the experience!

[Win Slow]

So then instead of Trilogy it should just be called "The Predator Collection" lol

[brainofj72]

I’d still love a box set of all Alien, Predator, and AVP movies. I want them all!

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nice! Bear in mind that a print is usually a 4th generation element so the movie has literally been copied and copied and copied down from the original negative, this process lops off a good 20-25% of high frequency information with every step so by the time you get to a print the grain has been obfuscated somewhat, looking coarser but softer at the same time. Throw in the general instability of 35mm projection (flicker, weave etc) and that also pinches a bit of resolving power. Compare that to a rock-solid new scan derived directly from the camera negative and the latter should be markedly grainier, particularly when HDR is involved, unless said transfer has had some grain management (which I don't think is a bad thing as long as it's handled with taste and skill).

That's why I wait for 70mm blow ups to be shown.

[Geoff D]

Yep, they're usually wetgated directly off the negative and, in the case of Super 35 shows, don't have to go through the optical conversion to 4-perf anamorphic as for a conventional 35mm 'scope release print.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, they're usually wetgated directly off the negative and, in the case of Super 35 shows, don't have to go through the optical conversion to 4-perf anamorphic as for a conventional 35mm 'scope release print.

Indeed, Aliens looks amazing

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Indeed, Aliens looks amazing

I just watched the Blu of Aliens the other night as my teenage daughter hadn't seen the movie before. I don't remember how long it has been since I've watched this Blu but I was almost floored at how good it looked. Fine detail is as good or better than a lot of the 4K catalog films I've seen on UHD Blu. I know some rant about the color but it didn't bug me. Absolutely fantastic Blu-ray transfer that I think would have very little improvement in 4K TBH.

[Geoff D]

Said much the same thing about Aliens here the last time I watched it; https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post15022378, I've repeatedly said it's one of the most amazing looking BDs I've ever seen and that last viewing somehow managed to look even better! Would a UHD help it some? Sure I guess, they could tease out some HDR highlight detail that's clipped out in SDR, but could it do better with the grain and the detail? I honestly doubt that, and I say that as one of the biggest marks for 4K you're likely to find on this planet.